Industrial Policy in Alberta: Lessons from AOSTRA and the oil sands
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper examines the record of industrial policy in Alberta and on this basis proposes principles for future innovation focused industrial policy in the province. I find that the development of the key technology in unlocking the majority of the Canadian oil sands, Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage (SAGD), is an example of industrial policy in Alberta responsible for disruptive innovation and economic development. Under strong political leadership and against the wishes of the incumbent industry – which preferred path following innovation in enhanced oil recovery – royalties were raised on the conventional oil industry to fund the Alberta Oil Sands Technology and Research Authority (AOSTRA), an extensive research and development project in what was seen as an “alternative” industry. While much of the research and testing was conducted in partnership and with matching funds from industry, after the initial $854 million (2019 dollars) government investment failed to demonstrate significant results, the pivotal investment in SAGD was purely government led in the face of opposition from industry that viewed the construction of the Underground Test Facility as a boondoggle. Once SAGD was proven it was the private sector, made up of personnel trained under AOSTRA, and with continued financial support from government, which grew SAGD into a significant industry. Over time the pivotal role of the $1.4 billion (2019 dollars) government investment and the original opposition the investment faced has been largely forgotten. There is growing interest in the potential for mission oriented innovation or industrial policy to address major social and environmental challenges and spur economic growth. As the Government of Alberta addresses the dual challenges of diversification and decarbonisation in the province, AOSTRA’s past success holds important lessons for future government policy. I explore these lessons and set out an industrial policy approach for the role of government in industry creation. Alberta’s economic development history shows the important role of industrial policy in disruptive innovations and economic growth, and how careful policy design can minimize rent-seeking and minimize the costs of the necessary mistakes in the process – the “losers” that end up picked in the necessary process of finding the “winners”.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".